Opinions - June 11, 2010

June 11, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s Opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Larz A. Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hospital, et al.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Larz Elliott’s proposed medical malpractice complaint against Rush Memorial Hospital, Carrie Tressler, and Dr. Philip Kingma. Elliott had alleged battery and negligence with respect to the forced catheterization to retrieve a urine sample after a Rush County sheriff’s deputy transported him to Rush Memorial Hospital and represented a court order at the hospital to retrieve a blood sample and a urine sample. Finds trial court erred in concluding that the defendants enjoy complete statutory immunity from any civil liability related to his claims of battery and negligence, but also finds Elliot’s claims fall outside the parameters of the Medical Malpractice Act because he was not a “patient” of the defendants, and that his catheterization clearly was not for his own medical benefit.

Sam's East Inc. City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals v. United Energy Corporation Inc. d/b/a Greenwood Sunoco
Civil. Affirms trial court’s reversal of the decision of the City of Greenwood Board of Zoning Appeals to issue a variance to Sam’s East Inc. to have a gas station near a Sam’s Club location in Greenwood. Since receiving approval for the gas station in 2005, Sam’s Club had encountered an environmental issue that delayed building plans, and the permit had expired before Sam’s constructed the gas station. After the permit expired, Sunoco built a gas station on property adjacent to Sam’s property. Shortly after, an ordinance was adopted that changed whether gas stations could be built in the area where Sam’s had previously received permission.

Cedar Mill Homeowners Association Inc. v. Patrick J. Bocian (NFP)
Civil. Affirms small claims court’s denial of Cedar Mill’s request for attorney’s fees.

Gregor W. King and Delores P. King v. Hamilton Southeastern Utilities Inc. (NFP)
Civil. Affirms amount of damages entered after a jury trial for the valuation of the Kings’ land affected by the acquisition of a temporary and permanent easement by eminent domain.

K.T. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
Civil. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Review Board affirming the decision of the administrative law judge to dismiss K.T.’s appeal as untimely.

J.S. v. J.M. and M.M. (NFP)
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting visitation with J.S. (mother)’s minor daughter C.G.M. to her paternal grandparents J.M. and M.M..

A.E. a/k/a A.S v. B.S. (NFP)
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s order emancipating A.E. (mother) and B.S. (father)’s 19-year-old son K.S. Also reverses and remands determination of arrearages on child support; and apportionment of partial arrearage to K.S.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.